Slashdot Mirror
China Unblocks Sensitive Keywords
hackingbear writes "Reports from overseas (in Chinese) [Google translation] and Hong Kong-based Chinese media report that China appears to have unblocked several sensitive political keywords. Using Baidu.com, the country's leading search engine, users within the mainland border find, in Chinese, uncensored web page links and images using keywords like
Tiananmen and 'June 4'. (Readers can click on the first one to view the images.) Given that the unblocking of these sensitive keywords comes one week after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly denounced left-wing leader Bo Xilai's movement of 'striking down the ganster while reviving the red culture' as going down the path of Cultural Revolution, it could signal the silent start of a major political change."
They'll just spam public internet services to suppress what they view as dissent, ramp up coordinated cyber attacks, make their lawyers swear oath to the Communist Party, force real name registration on internet services, continue censorship of social networks when deemed necessary, and continue to massively build out CNO and espionage capabilities, all while on track to exceed even the United States' defense spending by 2025.
But yeah, no big deal.
I'd read a few days ago that there was a lot of stuff going around the Chinese blogosphere about a possible coup or revolt going on in Beijing - armored vehicles in the streets, gunshots, and so on. This is second- or third-hand stuff - bloggers->other bloggers->american news - and until this, I figured it was the rough equivalent of the fake death rumors that go around Twitter sometimes. Even combined with the political infighting news, it was "possible but not probable".
But, in light of this, I'm thinking there might actually be something to it. Probably not a full-fledged revolution, but even violent political maneuverings might be a good thing (if the less-evil faction wins).
"It's a trap!"
Ezekiel 23:20
China is a vast multicultural society only held together by a sometimes ruthless dictatorship.
Releasing the reins too fast can have some very disturbing side effects.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
do you seriously believe a contentious current figure, in a secretive state is going to get an honest rap from Wikipedia?
Anyone in the echelons of power is an elitist, or crazy, it's a matter of degree, and what you're trying to do with that power.
Jiang Zemin was the party leader in shanghai during Tianmen who was able to stop the protests in shanghai without resorting to violence. Wen Jibao would not have publicly denounced Bo Xiliai without the approval of Jiang Zemin. It is likely the chinese government may be willing to adjust its view of the June 4th protesters to call them "sincere if misguided citizens seeking reform" and the ones who sought the crackdown were "hardliners" like Li Peng and use this as an excuse to purge the "red culture" and other hardliners faction from the party.
Also look and see if Zhao Ziyang gets rehabilitated posthumously.
Like, try searching for 'falun gong' then baidu.com stops responding. At least for me.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Wen Jibao would not have publicly denounced Bo Xiliai without the approval of Jiang Zemin.
I'm not sure I understand this interpretation. To me, it looked like a direct shot from Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao aimed right at Jiang Zemin's faction. They're opening up the Great Firewall because the majority of the information circulating on the western side is more embarrassing to Jiang than to Hu/Wen. Not only that, but it's allowing dirt regarding Bo Xilai / Zhou Yongkang to get back through to Chinese citizens in a roundabout way, bypassing domestic news sources (who, even when encouraged by the nominally-in-charge authorities to report, find themselves paralyzed and unwilling to possibly end up on the losing side, once the purges are over).
Why is Bo Xilai called a left-wing leader? Wikipedia portrays him as an "elitist" who sometimes supports leftist policies.
It's relative to the peculiar (and seemingly contradictory) factional politics of mainland China.
Bo Xilai is aligned with the "Shanghai Princeling" faction; their members are mostly descendants of the original generation of Communist leaders. Generally this group has been seen as elitist and market-oriented. Yet at the same time, Bo Xilai was known for instituting populist welfare programs, busting "criminal gangs" (and according to rumors, ordinary businessmen whose assets were coveted by the government) and encouraging Mao-era culture and ideology.
Their major rival faction, the Tuanpai faction, arose from members of the Communist Youth League; few of their members came from privileged backgrounds, including current General Secretary Hu Jintao (whose father was denounced during the Cultural Revolution). Their faction is generally considered populist, with special emphasis on social harmony.
Given these descriptions, it would be difficult for a Western observer to assign labels like "Left" or "Right" to these groups, but it makes sense from a Chinese perspective.
Tibet had accepted its place as part of China since before there was a Dalai Lama, the 13th century to be precise, 2 decades before the first Dalai Lama.
The little "take over" of Tibet by the PRC in the early 1950's was caused by British meddling in Tibet, first in 1913 with trying to push the new Republic of China to make Tibet a Autonomous region of China, as they tried to take parts of Southern Tibet and incorporate them into the British ruled India. When they attempted to merge 9,000 km squared worth of territory.
Then the British started to arm the Tibetans, and they launched attacks into the rest of China in the 1930s, where a Muslim Chinese Army and a Han Army crushed them.
When 1934 came around and the 13th Dalai Lama died, and the Tibetan government reaffirmed that Tibet was still a part of China as a autonomous region. To which Tibet is still classified today, along with 4 other provinces for 4 other minority groups. Most of which enjoy much greater freedoms then Tibet because they are not consistently starting problems for the central government. Two of which are Muslim autonomous regions, where in one was the power base of the Muslim war lord who helped crush the Tibetan attack into China mentioned above.
The Chinese Government in 1940 affirmed and allowed the 14th Dalai Lama selected to be named that and continue to be their spiritual leader. Something that is still kicking around in video tape form as it was filmed as a ceremony in Beijing.
Was not till 1947 that Tibet tried to act independently, at which point, the situation started to break down, and after the Communist take over of China, did they decide to re-exert their rule of Tibet, which again has been going on for over 800 years. Along with removing the power of the land lords and lama's in Tibet, as they did in the rest of China. As serfism is contrary communist teachings, and contrary to our own freedoms, as its a form of generational slavery to your landlord.
As a Greek, you should know, British meddling into countries affairs is never a good thing, lead us to one Civil War all about installing a Danish king back into power. Perhaps next time read some history and understand the situation in your own "native" land before opening your mouth about another country?
Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants and Jews, are welcomed to practice in China, as long as they denounce any connection with any external of China leadership. Such as Chinese Catholics do not hold the Vatican in any way, shape or form, as their "leadership". Officially there is about a third of the population who are religious. Some estimates put it greater then half of the population. There are some pretty big places of worship in China, that make some of our Western places of worship seem pale in comparison.
For example, the government commissioned a 105 meter tall statue of Guan Yin for Buddhists, that you can see here ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/HainanSanya2.jpg ) which is the 4th largest in the world built in 2005. The largest statue in the world being another CCP production at 128 meters and a cost of 18 million USD, was built in 2002 again for Buddhists ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Spring_Temple_Buddha_picturing_Vairocana%2C_in_Lushan_County%2C_Henan%2C_China.jpg.png )
Well that your willing to keep the Religion Chinese in origin and that your not going to use it as a front for political protests and ideologies contrary to the Communist Party's rule. Which really is very simple to understand and stay on the good side of the government, at least for most of the religions currently practicing in China.
That seems more or less the official PRC version of Tibetan history. To start it's worth pointing out that Tibet has it's own language, culture and writing system and is ethnically separate from the Han people who make up the majority of the PRC.
Tibet had been an autonomous region, since the mid 19th century Qing influence was mainly symbolic and of little practical consequence. In 1904 the British invaded, in 1910 the Qing did, and in 1912 the Tibetans got rid of the Qing. In 1950 the PRC conquered Tibet.
There is more, of course - but given that you left out everything going against the PRC case, it makes sense to add a few of those back in.
Ultimately what it comes down to: if the Tibetans don't want to belong to the PRC they shouldn't be forced to. After so many years of government by the PRC the Tibetans should now be able to see how much they benefit if they stay part of it. Surely there was enough time to convince them?
Give them a free and open vote. If after all this time the people of Tibet still don't want to be governed by Beijing, then Tibet does not belong to China.
That seems more or less the official PRC version of Tibetan history. To start it's worth pointing out that Tibet has it's own language, culture and writing system and is ethnically separate from the Han people who make up the majority of the PRC.
That is perhaps because its the recorded history that predates the PRC for the most part, and you cannot really outright lie about it when its written the same way in textbooks all over the world.
Tibet had been an autonomous region, since the mid 19th century Qing influence was mainly symbolic and of little practical consequence. In 1904 the British invaded, in 1910 the Qing did, and in 1912 the Tibetans got rid of the Qing. In 1950 the PRC conquered Tibet.
You have one relatively large problem with your over all line of thinking, in 1912 when the "uprising" happened, there was no Qing Dynasty anymore. Instead no, all the Tibetans did is attack a garrison of Qing troops still in the region, while the commander's (Zhao Erfeng) own troops openly revolted against him as well as they were fans of the Xinhai revolution that had already ended the Dynasty. The Dynasty's asserting control over Tibet, after Tibet started to try and veto agreements between China and Britain about Tibet, started in 1905, not 1910.
Additionally Tibet, like many other regions of today's China have always been "autonomous" regions under Federal country of the current ruling system of government for all of China. Doesn't mean they were not Federally incorporated into China for 800 years, nor does it mean they were "free". Instead they were enjoying the benefits of a pre-US Civil War style of government. Where the states were semi-independent entities.
Facts, and dates, a tell tale sign someone didn't actually do any research before opening their mouth. Or in this case before typing something.